[ramseybuckeye]

Sorry, I don't doubt you're having the issue, but it's typically a problem with much larger and heavier zooms. I'm surprised it's an issue with the 18-135 but it's certainly plausible.

Mine has had that when new, not while using, only when carrying. But it has never affected use, and it hasn't affected the weather sealing because I've got caught in some downpours with that lens. I can't think on any other lenses I've had that did that, of course I'm probably just forgetting.

---------- Post added 10-06-20 at 10:04 PM ----------

1
3. DA 18-135 WR - This was my most-used lens for some years, and has produced some of my favourite images. Still handy as a one-lens travel/walking option, but like @Ramseybuckeye for me it has been supplanted by the 20-40 and 55-300 PLM combination on walks (together with the 15 Ltd). Tempted to replace it with the 16-85 on sale but I don't think the changeover is worth the trouble for the use it would get. (But I change my mind every month about this.) I would often recommend the 18-135 to a new user with a limited budget, especially as part of a bundle with a K-70.

LOL, that's interesting, I use a small sling bag, and the three lenses that I always take are the 20-40, 55-300 PLM, and the 15.

[Cerebum]

I get lens creep from my 18-135mm, doesn't stop me loving it I had a 50-200mm when I started, wasn't impressed, I sold it to fund the 18-135, had a nagging regret so bought another two years down the line when I was a better photographer, it is now one of my most successful lenses. In my case, dissatisfaction in the lens stemmed from my skill level

[jeallen01]

I get lens creep from my 18-135mm, doesn't stop me loving it I had a 50-200mm when I started, wasn't impressed, I sold it to fund the 18-135, had a nagging regret so bought another two years down the line when I was a better photographer, it is now one of my most successful lenses. In my case, dissatisfaction in the lens stemmed from my skill level

Frankly I was never that impressed with either the sharpness or contrast of my 18-135 (and it had zoom creep), and so it soon got sold after I picked up the much older version 1 Sigma 17-70 (for about 1/2 what I sold the 18-135 for!) as I found that better all around, and that's my most used lens nowadays - OK, it's not WR, but then I don't go out shooting in the rain that much .

[Des]

LOL, that's interesting, I use a small sling bag, and the three lenses that I always take are the 20-40, 55-300 PLM, and the 15.

Great minds think alike Tom. ;-) You could travel the world with that kit (well, maybe adding the FA 43 or FA 77 for portraits and low light).

Won't the most common lenses for sale be correlated with the lenses most commonly bought in the first place? It's to do with quantity of product, right?

No doubt, Ian, but I guess it also largely correlates with the lenses most commonly superseded by others (DFA 100 being a notable exception).

The reason you see so many of these lenses for sale is that they are the cheaper models and a lot of times they are the kit lenses. People buy them and then those who move to a higher end lens will sell the cheaper lenses. Simple as that.

I think the value for anyone reading the thread lies in the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these common lenses and why people bought them, sold them or kept them and the lenses they replaced them with. Maybe someone might learn from our experiences (good and bad).

---

Last edited by Des; 10-07-2020 at 03:00 AM.

[Rondec]

I could be wrong, but my guess is that these lenses come up for sale in a few different scenarios.

(1) The seller has moved to full frame. Obviously a chunk of these lenses are APS-C only and if you buy a K-1 you aren't going to want to shoot them on a full frame sensor -- at least not long term.

(2) The seller wants something better. Some of these lenses are "starter" lenses. They aren't the fastest lenses out there with regard to aperture and many who shoot with, say, a DA 55-300 will look for a DA *300 or DA 55-300 PLM to replace it with.

(3) The seller is frustrated with the lens. My experience is that this often comes from SDM failure, but it could be slow auto focus or some other issue. The DA *16-50 is a nice lens, but it is certainly slow to focus and has a long history of SDM failures.

I would add that sometimes people buy lenses that they just don't connect with -- this could be a macro lens when you aren't a macro shooter or could be a fish eye lens when you don't appreciate that sort of projection.

[BigMackCam]

I would add that sometimes people buy lenses that they just don't connect with -- this could be a macro lens when you aren't a macro shooter or could be a fish eye lens when you don't appreciate that sort of projection.

That's certainly the case with me. I've bought highly-regarded lenses old and new that I just haven't taken to for various reasons, and less popular models that I've unexpectedly fallen in love with. No matter how good or bad a lens' reputation, there's a great deal of subjectivity involved...

[Lowell Goudge]

i think the discussion is only now getting past the "ME TOO" point where people check off the list what they have personally bought and sold and addressed the heart of the issue.

aside from kit lenses, where people ultimately want something better and part with the first lens that came form the camera, i think a lot of resale lenses come as the result of people posting for lens recommendations without having ever used a camera. they buy the camera and immediately go out and get the biggest and best of everything right away, without letting their own skills and style grow. they get drawn into the trap of you should buy this lens because..... but the reason contained in "because....: is not in somebody's area of either talent or interest.

your lenses should reflect what you like to do with the camera not what others like

[Wasp]

I don't have any of the lenses on the list in the opening post. Not even one. So I can't say about those.

One I can add to the list is the Takumar 35mm f/2.3 from the late fifties. I have one but it is not easy to get the mad bokeh and it is getting more valuable, so I don't take it with me very often. I just might sell it, but selling lenses goes against my hoarding nature.

[Sir Nameless]

This discussion motivated me to withdraw my for-sale listing on the 18-135. I was on the fence anyway--I suppose I should keep one modern AF lens around.

[northcoastgreg]

The only lens on the list that I have ever owned is the DFA 100 Macro, and although it doesn't get much use, I'm not ever getting rid of it. I'm always hoping at some point I'll be able to use it more. If, however, I had ever owned any of the other lenses on the list, I would have probably ended up selling them (with the exception of the DA* 16-50), and that's because I've wound up getting better options to them all. For all the lenses on the list, except for DFA 100 Macro and the DA* 16-50, there exist palpably better options. And I suppose the 100 macro gets resold because macro is hard and 100mm isn't always the most useful focal length, and the 16-50 gets sold because the whole SDM issue and (perhaps dubious?) complaints about wide open sharpness.

[Pål Jensen]

Super telephotos. They change owners pretty quick....

[steamloco76]

Super telephotos. They change owners pretty quick....

I am guilty of this several times over. Two Sigma 170-500s, two SMC-A 400/5.6s, Tamron SP 65 B 400/4, Sigma 120-400, Sigma 400/5.6. I finally settled on an F*300/4.5 and a DA*300/4 with HD 1.4X to reach 420mm. The DA300/HD1.4X combo is better wide open than any of the lenses I bought and resold were stopped down, except for the Tamron 400/4. The Tammy just didn’t fit my grab the shot and go style of shooting. Great lens though. The SMC-A 400/5.6 is a fine film camera lens, but it’s optical shortcomings required too much correction in pp, plus it is soft wide open.

[Hawkfan]

Really interesting thread. Glad I stumbled on to it. I have the 18-135 and love it. Very versatile for traveling and my copy at least is very sharp and capable as long as I am. Great thread on here for this lens alone. Also have the 35 2.4 Plastic Fantastic as I received as a freebie new in box basically from the seller I purchased my DA21 LTD from. Also have a DAL 55-300 that I am not that crazy about. It'll do bought construction is ehh and slow, noisy and hunting focus. Mainly use it for longer end and even with a 1.4 TC but looking at DA300 instead. Now if I can score one reasonably.

[stevebrot]

Once again, I am pondering this thread and realize there are a few lenses on my shelf that have no justification for their being there.

• DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 v1 (Not up to the challenge of being mated to the K-3, tried to sell it with K10D, buyer said no...)
• Tamron 70-210/4.0-5.6 (158A) (Nasty in almost every way, but actually not terrible optically and quite compact...bought to get the attached P/KA adapter...)
• Vivitar 28/2.8 CF (Komine) in Pentax K (yes, THE desirable Viv 28...never shoot with it)
• Vivitar 28/2.8 (Kino) in M42 (Not a bad lens, but on the large size...67mm filter thread...is on permanent display on my mantle attached to a nice looking Spotmatic)

Only one or maybe two of the above might make the list of lenses many eventually own/sell. I actually own the DA 50/1.8, but it is unlikely to be sold, mostly because it is too much fun to shoot with. I have better fast 50s, but none that are AF and essentially weightless. Yes, that is the lens that took a 3ft drop to my kitchen floor and BOUNCED and was caught by me on the rebound with no apparent damage.

I have several more that don't see light as often as they could, mostly because I am too distracted by cares of life to enjoy my craft and means of creative expression.


Steve

[ehrwien]

Yes, that is the lens that took a 3ft drop to my kitchen floor and BOUNCED and was caught by me on the rebound with no apparent damage.

The mental image I have of that is hilarious